(from here)

What is the NRA? Well, if we listen to the news media, the NRA is a big, powerful lobbyist for gun manufacturers. Unfortunately, some people believe whatever they see on television or in print. Dumb, but true.

Here is a somewhat dated article on the NRA, 5 facts about the NRA and guns in America ( Note that there are five million members in the NRA, that 74 percent favor background checks with respect to firearms purchases. Note that these members also favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to such checks. The problem is getting legislation that creates a system that only does what it is supposed to do. Liberal Democrats want a system that stops people from buying firearms.

Where does the NRA‘s supposedly humongous power come from? It is those five million members. Supposedly, as a front for gun manufacturers, the NRA spends a lot of money lobbying. According to, the NRA spent $5,122,000 (see National Rifle Assn: Summary). That may sound like lots of money, but that does not even put the NRA among the Top Organization Contributors ( Even some individuals spend more money, Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions.

So what is the takeaway. When news outlets like CNN try to demonize the NRA — even using children to front for them — we should investigate before we believe them. We should remember what the Nazis did to the Jews and Communists did to the bourgeoisie. As an excuse for seizing power they never otherwise would have been trusted with, the Nazis and the Communists spread lies to create enemies of the people. The lies about the NRA are just as perverse.

Note: I (Citizen Tom) am not a member of the NRA. I don’t have the much interest in guns. What I do care about is children. When the news media and political activists use children to front for them, I get angry. I am also not too happy about grieving parents being dragged into this debate over gun control. However, as adults they at least have enough experience to make a rational choice.  Whether they do or not is another issue.


How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA ( sounds awful.

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala’s, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA’s revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business. (from here)

What is the NRA doing? It is doing what almost any organization of hobbyists/sportsmen would do. No shenanigans. Just merchants trying to establishment relationships with the people who use their products.

Does the NRA lobby to protect gun rights? Of course, it does, but the abuse of gun rights does not help the gun industry. It just puts their investments at risk.


  1. You stated “sometimes we don’t seem to have much (wisdom) to work with.”

    From what I read and hear daily in the news, I believe “sometimes” is an understatement, in my opinion.

    I am beginning to think it might be better for me to go back to work so I don’t have time to listen to the folly I now have time to do.

    Retirement is supposed to be a time to enjoy life, so they say. Maybe I should follow my own advice and take a “time out” before I wind up being another “depressed” statistic.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

  2. Phillip Augustine

    I would add must be 21 years of age. The reason being we have medical evidence that a person’s mind is not fully developed to reason adequately until it reaches approximately that age.

    Not to certain if 2nd Amendment Rights would be violated by making it mandatory to prove a valid reason for gun ownership. Not certain if it would also be practical policy for politicians to control or even decide why someone else should decide if a gun owners reasons for wanting a gun is reasonable.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    1. What you are saying has merit, but…. If 18 year-olds are not allowed to buy guns, they should not be allowed to serve in the military, vote, buy alcohol, and so forth. They should be treated as minors. Given how dangerous a car is, they should not even be allowed to drive.

      For some reason, however, I think some will be very selective of the rights they want to take from the 18-21 crowd.

      Why is taking away their right to own firearms is okay? Why is this being proposed? This is about dividing and conquering. If the 18- 21 crowd is not allowed to by firearms, how do you think they will regard the gun rights of those over 21?

      1. I understand your reasoning. Legislators in Illinois are now trying to pass a law to make it illegal to purchase cigarettes until a person is 21.

        With your military background, I surmise you know the military prefers to enlist men at 18 because they are more idealistically motivated to be trained to kill without thinking about the philosophy of killing as might be questioned by an older enlisted recruit.

        I frankly do not know what should is the perfect solution to reduce mass killings in the USA.

        I do relate an idiom “That a bird in hand is more worth two in a bush” might also be a practical answer to slow down the mounting repeating of people with mental or propaganda driven motivations to kill innocent people.

        I read an article that 20 percent of Americans suffer from mental depression.

        Assuming that is correct, we need to worry less about Rights and consider that when a person is dead they lose their Rights as well as their life.

        Perhaps a simple juvenile method to control them with a “time out” may be warrented for easily obtainable assult weapons available off a store shelf in minutes?

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        1. There will always be some evil people, indifferent people, careless, people, cowardly people,….. sinful people. With God’s help we do the best we can.

          Loving our neighbor involves respecting our neighbor’s rights. We have to balance those rights. If someone is mentally ill or just won’t behave, we have to balance their rights against the rights of their neighbor’s right to life. That takes wisdom, and sometimes we don’t seem to have much to work with.

  3. Not simple, is it? According to some psychologists, 70% of us are mentally ill in some way. Does a spotless criminal record require complete the absence of criminal accusations or the absence of any convictions for a felony committed with a gun?

    With some loud and caustic debate, we have worked through those issues. We have a system. The real problem, I think, is creating a background check system that actually works. Here is an excerpt of something Dana Loesch, an NRA spokesperson, said at that CNN town hall on Wednesday in Sunrise, Florida

    LOESCH: We had three lawmakers on this stage and only one of them hinted at reinforcing the background check system. It is only as good as the records submitted to it. Only one of them even got anywhere close to mentioning that. We have to have more than 38 states submit records. That’s number one. Number two, we have to develop better protocol to follow up on red flags. This monster carrying bullets to school, carrying knifes to school, assaulting students, assaulting his parents, 39 visits in the past year.

    That should never have been allowed to get that far. And I don’t have the authority or the resources to follow up on that. If you want to give me the authority and resources, I’ll follow up on those red flags. But I don’t have that authority to do so. This is why we have to start asking these questions. I want to see your network ask these questions. I want to see these headlines in the media more. We have to follow up on protocol and why are the states not complying with this law. (=>

    As the lady has pointed out (=>, we are not enforcing the laws on the books. So what is the point of creating more?

    1. Could you please explain to me, why NRA spokesperson Loesch is bemoaning the failure of the NICS in the above quote, when the NRA lobbied against the Brady act and argued in its amicus curiae to Printz vs. United States to strike down the Brady Act in its entirety? Scalia et. al. only followed in part and made the reporting by the individual states voluntary, thus laying the foundation for incomplete reporting that Loesch nowadays wants to see improved?

      1. Oh… we have someone who knows law? 🙂 I am guessing no one in here knows that much detail. But.. I like your remarks simply because the NRA does indeed hoodwink their own members on many things.

      2. The original Brady act required a five day waiting period by federal mandate. That is the aspect the NRA had issues with at the time. Printz vs US wasn’t a case against background checks, it was a case against federal “interim provisions” (the regulation required during the interim period before everything was computerized). The NRA is against regulations as it views them as a stepping stone to eventual confiscation.

        1. Oops…just rereading. They aren’t against regulations.
          They are against registrations. Good grief. I must need a nap.

        2. Anon.. your last sentence in your remark sadly explains it all.. including the presentation of fear to it’s members, and for recruitment purposes. Just where and when in the entire history of this country was the Second Amendment in any such danger of of progressing away from what the Founding Fathers intended.. or more to the point, what our Supreme Court has interpreted? I know we tend to think this sentence epitomizes the goal of the NRA.. and it certainly was reflected in LaPierre’s speech the other day. But I do not know if this is the official mission of the NRA.. to foster fear that the Second will somehow be removed.
          You see, when the NRA professes this they are assuring their cash flow and selling memberships. More power to them; it’s First Amendment freedom. But they’ve managed to sell this real fake news to so many people and people have bought into this fear.

          1. @Doug

            The eventual goal of the Democratic Party is not confiscation? The first thing they do after every mass shooting is call for more gun control. They blame the weapon, not the person carrying it. The fact is that Gun Control activists, including elected officials, have done an excellent job of convincing everyone that their goal is the confiscation of all firearms.

            The Supreme Court had a 5–4 decision vote on the Heller Decision. If H. Clinton had been elected, confiscation would have been just a matter of time.

          2. No Tom.. that is so far out of whack.. honestly. Do people get pissed each time a shooting occurs? Of course they do! But there’s no grand democratic or liberal plan to remove the Second Amendment. Jeez, buddy.. where do conservatives get this fear? Ok.. well, the NRA yeah. With all the time in past history when the Dems carried Congress they could have done that many times if this was a priority.

          3. Are you familiar with the fact that Liberal Democrats are perfectly happy to appoint judges who will happily legislate from the bench?

            Democrats already have an constitutional interpretation designed to justify getting rid of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They go with the first half, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. They say the Second Amendment is all protecting militias, They ignore the second half, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That second half clearly states that there is a right to bear arms, but they don’t give a damn.

            Look at history. Look around the world. You and I were blessed to be born in the land of the free, but our homeland is a rare anomaly. It is a fluke. We can only keep it so long as we love and appreciate it for the gift that it is.

          4. “Are you familiar with the fact that Liberal Democrats are perfectly happy to appoint judges who will happily legislate from the bench?”

            Good Lord, Tom. And Conservative judges don’t? Isn’t that the entire idea of wanting a judge appointed who leans one way or the other? Personally I hate the idea.. I want my judges to be totally impartial in interpreting the Constitution by using honest juris prudence.. but because judges are human we pick them for their bias’s in morality and politics.
            Do conservatives actually honestly think a “liberal” is a different kind of human; dedicated to upending the Constitution with secret organizations and secret handshakes and anti-moralities.. and Conservatives exist as if they were the Knights Templar protecting the Holy Grail?? American democracy is NOT the playground for Conservatives.. it’s the rule of law for Americans.
            The Second Amendment in NO way protects the Constitution and it was never designed for that. It’s the First… which is why it is the First. This NRA-inspired fear that somewhere in the world, right now as we speak, is some little mustached ex-corporal posturing himself (or even “herself”) to march into America is beyond the ridiculous. There’s been no such threat to America in its entire 250 year history. Quite honestly I pretty much accept the idea that part of our success as a nation has been in our geography; both western hemispheres have been isolated (and insulated) from the more traditional migrations of man and the resulting warring conquest encounters in Europe and Asia. By time America was discovered European and Asian migrations had been going on for a millenia. But that’s just me. I am willing to acknowledge American democracy is a singular achievement in human self-governing.. but geography had a part in keeping our governmental longevity.

            Regarding your summation about the interpretation of the wording of the Second.. I don’t agree, but it matters not. SCOTUS has interpreted the decision and it is law… and I accept that. Not like I am loosing sleep over it. I would have preferred the amendment read simply… “The right to bear arms should not be infringed.” and left that militia stuff out of it.. or explain it separately in it’s own sentence. But the Founding Fathers were in another era (an era of muzzle loading flintlocks) and explained it the best way they thought.

          5. @Doug

            When Democrats create bogeymen, they point to the rich, the NRA, corporations, the KKK, the Tea Party, the Christian Right, and various other groups. Conservatives point to faulty beliefs, to the capacity of the human heart to delude itself.

            Look at what you just wrote. For all practical purposes you agreed with me. However, to you the right to bear arms doesn’t matter. Ironically, you just wrote a series of eight posts on something that does not matter to you.

          6. You know.. here’s an interesting paradox, Tom. The news is reporting all these big name corporations jumping the NRA’s ship regarding those perks provided to be an NRA member. Every interest group has them.. AAA, AARP, etc. The impact to the NRA is in the pocketbook to some extent but it’s more a visual political statement assaulting the NRA’s perpetual inability to empathize and sympathize and join humanity. But here’s my greater takeaway from what is likely going to end up being a big problem for the NRA when this is all said and done.

            Interest groups DO serve a purpose in our political system as they do represent their interest base. This generally includes lobbying.. but mostly it can include sponsoring court challenges that may threaten the theme of their interest. The NRA did/does a lot of that. If they didn’t then the legal bills would need to be footed by the private sector. I see it as a further checks & balances. If the NRA wants to put themselves out of business (yes.. likely not going to happen in that dramatic sense.. anytime soon) then somehow that impedes a checks & balances service they were providing. So.. if the future effectiveness of the NRA is going to be singularly over this idea that it’s the “right to own a gun” only, and the obsessive protection of that right at all costs, then to me that’s piss poor management of an interest group that IS important. Much better to improve their PR to suggest the NRA can live in a tandem with effective gun regulation and still maintain their role as guardian of the freedom.
            But sadly, you can just feel it in the mindset of LaPierre and Loesch.. circle the wagons, batten down the hatches… we are going down fighting! Well.. why? That’s not necessary. The amendment is not being challenged. The NRA could so easily be a leader in this. They have the opportunity to mold and thereby control the way they help the situation. Just good business sense. Time to replace NRA management and set a new precident for future gun interests.

          7. @Doug

            Consider what happened when Trump complains about the “fake news media”. His opponents equate complaining about them as a violation of their First Amendment rights. Silly. Right?

            Similarly, the news media has filled the air with lots of hyperbole about the NRA.

            The news media bloviates to fill air time. Instead of trying to tell us about events we need to know about, they find it less costly and more profitable to amuse us. One of my favorite “amusements” is akin to what you are trying to do for the NRA. The news media loves to tell Conservatives how to be better, more reasonable Conservatives. Of course, if Conservatives took all their advice from the news media, we would soon behave like Liberal Democrats.

        3. “Of course they do! But there’s no grand democratic or liberal plan to remove the Second Amendment. Jeez, buddy.. where do conservatives get this fear?”

          Because most have never seen a piece of anti-gun legislation they didn’t like. True some Democrats aren’t anti-gun, but they come from the firearm friendly states. Firearm friendly states tend to vote Conservative. Hillary received more money from the anti-gun lobbyists than any conservative politician did from the pro-gun lobbyists. Why do you think that is? There are stepping stones to banning firearms. It doesn’t require a total ban to make them prohibitively difficult for a law abiding person to own or use effectively.

          1. Stepping stones?? That’s NRA total nonsense. C’mon. Honestly the one “stepping stone” as you call that I am seeing is that if the NRA doesn’t make an attempt to even TRY to be human there could easily be some future shooting that upsets the population so much, sometime in the future, that emotions will, in fact, start to tamper with the Second (like the Prohibition amendment). The fear is NOT from some fantasy of an invading army.. the threat is from within, and could get worse in the future.

        4. “The fear is NOT from some fantasy of an invading army.. the threat is from within, and could get worse in the future.”

          Agreed. That’s the “free state” bit. I’m not so worried about an invading army, I’m more worried about invading criminal individuals who mean me or my family harm, gangs, riots, social instability that fuels those things. See what happens to Korean businesses during riots, see what happens to areas during natural disasters, heck, see what happens to people during mass shootings until someone with a gun arrives to take them down. See Vaughan Foods beheading incident, see what happens on the regular in Liberty City Miami.

        5. BTW, this is the last i’ll address you on the topic of firearms, Doug. I think I’ve said enough and you’ve demonstrated you’re not going to listen.

          1. I guess you’ve told me! You could have just mumbled off an expletive to yourself about me having a different opinion and just ignored me until the end of time and I’d not know the difference. But you felt the need to let me know in some dramatic pout. tsk-tsk.
            But, I agree it can be frustrating when we smack up against immovable objects. Far easier to think, “He’s the reason this country is so xxxxxx up.” and move on. In the end we gotta do what we gotta do.

          2. Just noticed this in the “trash”. Would have expected it to go in the spam bucket because of the four-letter word, but it went into the “trash”. Anyway, I am not sure if your mother is still with us, but mine is watching from above. Please don’t use words like that.

        1. So the NRA helped cripple the NICS then and opposes it now. Still, the NRA spokesperson sheds crocodile tears of how badly NICS is working (per your quote above). Seriously?

          I have spent some time on the NRA site. I have yet to find a clear statement of gun right policies the NRA would support. Neither are there calls for reform of the NICS, or what kind of NICS the NRA would support, nor is there a call to abolish NICS outright. The same goes for at what class of weapon the NRA would draw the line wrt the 2nd amendment. Fully automatic? Handgrenades? Mortars? Rocket propelled grenades? Tanks? Fighter jets? Atomic bombs? (And yes, the list gets silly towards the end. That is, I hope you agree that at least some of these do not belong into the hands of civilians.)

          Where do you personally, Tom, draw the line? Obviously you want any weapon that is legal to own today to stay legal, that’s easy enough to conclude from your writings. However, would you like to expand that range? If you draw a line somewhere, why?

          As I am asking you to show me what you consider reasonable, here’s my proposal, as a foreigner, I’d prefer a low gun bearing society. Property owners can designate their area as gun-free. The local sheriff together with the local government has the power to designate gun-free zones. As for weaponry, reasonably sized shotguns for self-defence (do not shoot through walls in crowded areas), especially in rural areas where you can not rely on police to come in time. Revolvers and guns, with magazines up to 6 or so shots. No automatic or semi-automatic rifles (including conversions). Hunting rifles are fine, again magazines with up to 10 shots. Convictions of violent crimes or repeated charges of domestic violence disqualify you from owning guns, which also means you have to relenquish existing ones. Brady-style checks for all sales, whether private or commercial; if the check passes the record is deleted within 2-3 weeks, if not it is kept for up to 10 years; repeat failures to pass result in legal trouble. All weapons need to be registered. Gun ownership requires a license, where you have to prove familiarity with gun safety and demonstrate proficiency in handling the weapon (similar to a driving license).

          My rationale is that if the state truly would turn against you, your AR-15 would not be enough firepower against state or federal power anyway. My selection above makes it harder for mass shooter wannebes to kill as many victims as they can today (lower firing rate, lower effective combat range with guns vs rifles).

          1. @marmoewp

            So the NRA helped cripple the NICS then and opposes it now.

            Nothing like coming out of the chute with a false premise. The legislation that created that system was flawed from the start, and the NRA did not write it.

            I don’t speak for the NRA. So I am not going to argue about which position they would support. I just think what you are attempting to do, demonize your opposition, is perverse.

            What is the objective? Protecting children or destroying the NRA? What are you doing? Proposing how we should protect children or coming up with excuses for destroying the NRA? Will destroying the NRA protect anyone?

            So you have your little list of guns and accessories you would ban? What you don’t have is a rationale that has anything to do with our Constitution.

            Where would I draw the line? When a building can be blown up with a truck loaded with fertilizer? I don’t get too excited about living in a society full of paranoid people obsessed with the regulation of the production and sale of fertilizer, but after a certain bombing some were making serious proposals. This sort of reaction is called panic. It is why gun control freaks come flying out of the rafters after every mass shooting.

            It has been legal to own powerful semiautomatic weapons in this country for long time. Whenever the reason, we now have a somewhat higher frequency of mass shootings. Why? That’s another discussion, but it indicates deeper moral problem than the mere possession of guns.

            Do some people abuse the right to own a weapon? Do some people abuse the right to own an auto? Yes and yes. So we have to regulate rights. When one person abuses their rights by infringing upon the rights of others, we have to do what it takes to stop the abuser.

            Our Second Amendment right to bear arms was written a long time ago. Then militia members brought their own weapons with them to drill. The government provided the heavy weapons. The principle has not changed sense then. The Second Amendment was designed to protect the individual’s right to defend himself, his family, his home, and his friends and neighbors.
            Whatever the NRA (Instead of demonizing people, look it up for yourself.) thinks about it, semiautomatic weapons are okay for that. The average person looks at the cost of ammunition, the firing rate of a machine gun, and says: “I can’t afford that much ammo.” You can’t even control an M-16 in full automatic.

            If someone wants to make a bomb out of fertilizer, I don’t think it will be easy to stop him. Nobody, however, has to sell such a fool a Stinger missile, and it is probably not a good idea to make the sale of Stinger missiles legal to the general public.

            As an American, I don’t spend much time worrying about guns. Most people do the right thing because they have learned that doing the wrong thing just gets everyone else mad at them. Laws don’t have much to do with that. Making a bunch of rules that it takes a lawyer to sort through just makes lawyers rich.

            When more people are killed with handguns, even knives, why should we be worrying about rifles or so-called assault weapons like the AR-15.

            When we have to call the cops, that’s a bad sign. That means someone doesn’t care if other people get angry with them.

            When do people make a practice of hurting others? I think the vast majority of hate filled people hate because they never believed anyone cared for them. They don’t understand — they never learned — that we have to love in order to receive the love of others.

            Are rifles dangerous? Of course they are. My father made that point crystal clear to his sons. He showed us where he had accidentally gotten shot with a .22 rifle. My father also served in WWII, and he told us a story about the M1 Garand, the standard U.S. service rifle during the war. During a USO show, a weapon was accidentally discharged. That round went through six people. Not good! Don’t have accidents with guns. Treat them with care.

            Here is a quote for you from our Declaration of Independence.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

            When the men who signed that document signed it, they were going up against the most powerful military force of their day. The odds were against them. Just the same, they went home, got their guns, and they fought. It was a long war, and many of them died.

        2. “All weapons need to be registered. Gun ownership requires a license, where you have to prove familiarity with gun safety and demonstrate proficiency in handling the weapon (similar to a driving license).”

          Gun ownership could require a license without the mandatory registration of weapons. What purpose would the weapons be registered for? It’s already mandatory to report a stolen or missing firearm. Criminals obviously don’t register their weapons so why should a law abiding, trained armed citizen be required to register their weapons with the state? What purpose would that serve?

        3. @Tom

          I just think what you are attempting to do, demonize your opposition, is perverse.

          What is the objective? Protecting children or destroying the NRA? What are you doing?

          Your reading notwithstanding, demonizing gun advocates or the NRA is not my intention. What I will do is point out lies and deceptions, and I think I justly called out Dana Loesch on that.

          Our Second Amendment right to bear arms was written a long time ago. Then militia members brought their own weapons with them to drill. The government provided the heavy weapons. The principle has not changed sense then.
          Since at latest WWII the government provided all the clothing, weaponry – from small arms to hand grenades and aircraft carriers – your soldiers use. The draft was abandoned after the Vietnam war. The militias you have today are the military reserves made up of your veterans, organized in the National Guard and similar organizations. As you have a standing army comprised of professional soldiers – who have volunteered to do the job – there is no longer a need for the general public to be called on for either service or private weapons. I guess, our notions of “The principle has not changed sense then” differ.

          The Second Amendment was designed to protect the individual’s right to defend himself, his family, his home, and his friends and neighbors.
          “The people” can have two meanings. One is that of the body of enfranchised citizens of a state, another as a generic placeholder for an individual of that body. It is my understanding, that there have been substantial debates over which of these meanings is applicable in the 2nd amendment and that this dispute was only settled in the 21st century by rule of the Supreme Court in favor of the latter meaning.

          The average person looks at the cost of ammunition, the firing rate of a machine gun, and says: “I can’t afford that much ammo.” You can’t even control an M-16 in full automatic.
          Controlling an M-16 in full out is childs play compared to controlled shooting an MG-3 while standing You are talking to a former machine gunner. I was taught to shoot the MG-3 in groups of three shots (and no, it’s not that easy), unless engaging in suppressive fire. Anything else was considered a waste of ammo. The same with the G3 rifle, which has single shot, 3 shot burst and auto fire. Standard mode of operation is single shot.

          If someone wants to make a bomb out of fertilizer, I don’t think it will be easy to stop him.
          Try buying large quantities of fertilizer and enjoy the attention of the DHS. *grins*

          1. @marmoewp

            I pretty much dealt with the subjects you bring up here in this post:

            I don’t claim to have all the answers. I just have this old quote.

            Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins. (from =>

            We can come up with all kinds of schemes for regulating each others rights (That is what we are talking about.), but when we do we have to recognize the danger. If we want the rights we consider important protected, we have to be willing to protect the rights the other guy considers important.

            In the USA we have a long tradition that recognizes the right to bear arms. Generally that includes all semiautomatic weapons. If some idiot fires his weapon in a restricted location, at a minimum his neighbors will give him grief. Repeated offenses will get him in serious trouble with the police. Does that work for everyone? No, but no compromise make everyone happy, and that is not the objective.

            Do you understand the difference between optimum performance and perfect performance? The same is true of compromises. The first is achievable. The latter is not.

          2. Since you have some experience in the military, you will probably enjoy this.

            When I was in the military, I worked in space operations. So I did not have much reason to use firearms. When you work in facilities surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards who enjoy playing with guns, who needs another guy who barely knows which way to point the darn thing?

            Anyway, the latter model M16’s work much better. Even the Marines like them.

        4. @anon

          What purpose would [weapon registration] serve?

          A) deterrent against straw purchases (Oh noes, my weapons have been stolen! Again! Just like the last eight times …)
          B) if weapons need to be relenquished (e.g. domestic violence) the police knows what to look for at a minimum.
          C) If the good guy with guns(TM) turns into a bad guy with guns, LEOs have an idea of what they are up against

  4. So where would any of you draw the line at this approach?

    “Must be subject to background checks, and must have spotless criminal records and pass psychological tests. An exam may also have to be taken, and a valid reason for gun ownership must also be proved.”

  5. In my opinion, somewhere in the arguments to disarm everyone in the USA, and perhaps create another Hitler despot, and allowing military assault weapons being sold off the shelf in minutes, there has to be a better common sense course of action to reduce or control another Mass shooting by either mental or terrorist killers.

    Why, because the present gun policies are not providing an effective.means to safely protect the lives and liberty of all Americans.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

  6. I’m not an NRA member, but I know people who are and I have no problem with the organization. I am very pro freedom when it comes to citizens and guns and think the NRA does a good and necessary job of protecting that freedom. As you say, the NRA represents the interests of millions of people around the country and it’s lobbying dollars are minuscule when compared to other influencers like unions.

    Movements resort to demonization when they can’t get the majority of the country to agree with their agenda, which for the far left is an outright gun ban which most Americans do not support.

  7. “Liberal Democrats want a system that stops people from buying firearms.”
    Not sure I understand that statement, Tom. In the current Congress, how is this being determined? I guarantee… without a doubt… more people in Congress own guns than just the number of GOP members. Also, if you count the number of defeated gun legislation over the years, many liberal democrats had contributed to that.
    Besides all that… conservative Justice Scalia stated in the Heller case decision back in ’08 that the Second Amendment for sure upheld the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, in spite of the “militia” wording… and also, indicated that alone does NOT exempt attempts to assign regulations as long as the regulations did not impair the right to self-defense… specifically regarding weapons that perform beyond individual self-defense (rocket launchers, grenades, etc.). In other words.. you can own a gun.. but it is still open on the kind of gun you can reasonably own. Obviously that would be argued in court case-by-case down the line. But point being.. the Court ruled… the amendment says we can own guns. So what is the NRA fighting about? They use fear to make money.

    1. @Doug

      What is the NRA fighting about? Don’t be silly. A couple of Supreme Court appointments and what the Constitution says suddenly “changes”. That how perverse the politics have become.

      Look at the monetary amounts the NRA has to work with. What the gun manufacturers give it is not by itself enough to make a difference.. There is far more written about the NRA by a hostile news media than anything its advertising budget could generate. In fact, if the NRA could afford to buy more advertising that would buy off some of that hostile media.

      What the NRA primarily helps to deliver to politicians is voters, not money, and that is perfectly legitimate. However, that truth does not fit the biased news media narrative.

Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

The Stories In Between

Author River Dixon


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Artaxes' brainbench

Truth in an age of deception

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Dr. A's Website


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: